Thanks again; I was getting a kick out of some of those comments. I didn't realize this was a blog. And,I must admit that I was intrigued by the first sentence "Evolutionists disagree amongst themselves about the theory of evolution but they agree about the fact of evolution." and the conundrum built into it

You do know that i posted that in the open because i wanted you guys to see right ? Thats why i named the thread evolutionfairytales so it would come up when you searched this forum Back ontopic what do you think about genetic evidence for vestigial traits ?

Advent was caught in a lie (actually, many lies),and attempted to cover them with statements like the one above.

Why did he do this? Mainly because he couldn't deal with the forum in general, the rules specifically, and more succinctly; OP's like this one.

Guy's like him make it easy to prove why threads like this, corner people like him, in their false dichotomies. You cannot be honest and dishonest at the same time.

If you believe there is no God, and defend that belief dogmatically, you are religious. If you believe we cannot know if there is a God, and defend that belief dogmatically, you are religious.

No, and No. After a person is dead, it can be said with 100% certainty that they have stopped living, any life after that is purely wishful thinking.

That is purely a faith statement (conjecture and wishful thinking). You have absolutely no idea what happens to you after your body ceases to function. Had you said Ã¢â‚¬Å“After a persons body ceases to function, it can be said with 100% certainty that their body ceased to functionÃ¢â‚¬Â, you would have been absolutely correct.

There's currently no box on my organ donor card for a soul.

ThereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s currently no box on your organ donor card for a thought, and yet you donate that here all the time; regardless of the relevancy of said thoughts. In other words, regardless of whether or not you Ã¢â‚¬Å“believeÃ¢â‚¬Â we have a soul, attempting to equate it Ã¢â‚¬Å“materialisticallyÃ¢â‚¬Â with a body, is much the same as attempting to equate a thought Ã¢â‚¬Å“materialisticallyÃ¢â‚¬Â with the brain, or a vision Ã¢â‚¬Å“materialisticallyÃ¢â‚¬Â with the eye. They all interact, but one set is metaphysical, and the other is physical.

As soon as surgeons perfect the soul transplant I'd be quite happy to change my mind on the existence of a soul.

There is a surgeon that performs soul surgery, but your faith that He doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t exist, is as great (if not greater) than my faith that He does exist.

Anyway, back to the OP; Can I conclude then, that your faith is telling you that you do or donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know where we came from (what are our Origins)? And, your faith is telling you what the atheistic foundations are that support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?

Or, you have materialistic evidences to provide answers to the OP questions.

No Doubt The problem is, I made it crystal clear whilst at the same time yanking the equivocation curtain away so it couldn't be hid behind. Now the evo-wizards won't come and play

This really isn't a big leap. Plenty of atheists understand what is going on here and even accept it, even if it is through gritted teeth. I guess it isn't as commonly understood on the popular level, putting many atheists into the awkward position of believing they can defend their atheism as an epistemological base. I guess the atheists who can articulate and understand this problem from their own perspective are still too hesitant to carry out the candor and effort to explain it to those that listen to them. I'm think of Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennett, Hitchens and Sam Harris for starters. All of these people will acknowledge the intellectual vacuum that is atheism, when pressed, at least. However, they seem to forget to explain these implications to their followers.

ThereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s no doubt about that Adam, but the pop-atheists (like Dawkins) spout many faith statements of their own, and then deny doing it. Also, it is well known amongst logicians that Dawkins makes many logical equivocations, out-of-hand, without keeping up to date with the understanding of logic (I have so info around here somewhere with W.L. Craig talking about it. I think itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s on mp3 though), let alone understanding what he even says about logic. And his whole dissertation on memes is basically inventing yet another metaphysical/ethereal type phenomena that materialists cannot even deal with in the first place.

Thanks again; I was getting a kick out of some of those comments. I didn't realize this was a blog. And,I must admit that I was intrigued by the first sentence "Evolutionists disagree amongst themselves about the theory of evolution but they agree about the fact of evolution." and the conundrum built into itÃ‚Â

I think his point is that evolutionary biologists know that evolution happens, but there is some disagreement on the mechanisms involved. For example, debates regarding punctuated equilibrium.To apply it to the creationist world view, all creationists believe that God created the universe, but old-earth creationists disagree with young earth creationists on the specifics.

I think his point is that evolutionary biologists know that evolution happens, but there is some disagreement on the mechanisms involved.

That is an incorrect statement. Evolutionary biologists donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t Ã¢â‚¬Å“know that evolution happensÃ¢â‚¬Â, they know that adaptation within a kind/species happens. They then postulate upon the evolution question, and place great faith in it sometimes.

For example, debates regarding punctuated equilibrium.

Punctuated Equilibria came in vogue due to the weakness of phyletic gradualism (or uniform gradual transformation) and the many leaps and gaps within it. Evolutionary biologists had no choice to try something new, since the old is fizzling out.

To apply it to the creationist world view, all creationists believe that God created the universe, but old-earth creationists disagree with young earth creationists on the specifics.

That is actually a good correlation analogous to the faith statement built into both Creationism AND evolution.

That is an incorrect statement. Evolutionary biologists donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t Ã¢â‚¬Å“know that evolution happensÃ¢â‚¬Â, they know that adaptation within a kind/species happens. They then postulate upon the evolution question, and place great faith in it sometimes.

Punctuated Equilibria came in vogue due to the weakness of phyletic gradualism (or uniform gradual transformation) and the many leaps and gaps within it. Evolutionary biologists had no choice to try something new, since the old is fizzling out. That is actually a good correlation analogous to the faith statement built into both Creationism AND evolution.

Actually, they do know that it happens. If you'd like to debate it, I'd really like to see a formal debate, on this very forum, with the youtube user Aronra. He is one of the most respected evolutionary researchers active on youtube, and has participated in a number of formal text debates with creationists in the recent past. I'd very much like to see a formal debate on evolution between him and any one creationist on this forum on the subject.

No they don't, since evolution is not directly observable - everyone is to some degree a skeptic. Even militant evolutionists like Richard Dawkins admit evolution is not observable, and so it can not be 100% known it happens.

Any evolutionist who claims they ''know evolution happens'' is dishonest.

As I said; we all know what happensÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s called adaptation.

But, to keep in context of this OP, explain to me how the atheistic worldview can support the origins of evolution via the foundations of atheistic origins. And do so via the Ã¢â‚¬Å“empirical scientific methodÃ¢â‚¬Â!

If you'd like to debate it, I'd really like to see a formal debate, on this very forum, with the youtube user Aronra.

IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m sure you would Kaliko, but what does a debate invitation for your guy at You Tube have to do with the OP of this thread? Also, if he cannot help but equivocate any less then you have proven to do here, why would I even bother?

On second thought, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll tell you what; if he can provide real evidence (empirical scientific) for macro evolution (i.e. gradual and incremental transitional evidence showing fin-to-arm/leg-to-wing), and not Ã¢â‚¬Å“we found this bone in a whale that proves they were land animalsÃ¢â‚¬Â, or Ã¢â‚¬Å“hereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a fully formed animal (with no gradual and incremental transitional evidence), and that proves evolutionÃ¢â‚¬Â; then IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll be more than happy to admit evolution is real.

Plus, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d really like to see that!

P.S. I did get a kick out of his religio-evolutionary statements.

But, to keep in context with this OP, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll be more than happy to debate the questions posited in this OP.

As I said; we all know what happensÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s called adaptation.

But, to keep in context of this OP, explain to me how the atheistic worldview can support the origins of evolution via the foundations of atheistic origins. And do so via the Ã¢â‚¬Å“empirical scientific methodÃ¢â‚¬Â! IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m sure you would Kaliko, but what does a debate invitation for your guy at You Tube have to do with the OP of this thread? Also, if he cannot help but equivocate any less then you have proven to do here, why would I even bother?

On second thought, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll tell you what; if he can provide real evidence (empirical scientific) for macro evolution (i.e. gradual and incremental transitional evidence showing fin-to-arm/leg-to-wing), and not Ã¢â‚¬Å“we found this bone in a whale that proves they were land animalsÃ¢â‚¬Â, or Ã¢â‚¬Å“hereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a fully formed animal (with no gradual and incremental transitional evidence), and that proves evolutionÃ¢â‚¬Â; then IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll be more than happy to admit evolution is real.

Plus, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d really like to see that!

But, to keep in context with this OP, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll be more than happy to debate the questions posited in this OP.

I don't know. Nobody has any empirical evidence to show the origins of the Universe or of Life. Nobody. We all don't know. If there was any empirical evidence either way we wouldn't be able to have these lovely discussions would we? No, we would all just know without out a doubt what the truth about our origins is. That would be that.

What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?

Atheism has no foundation to support their philosophy on origins. There is no empirical proof for our origins. Since there is no empirical proof of our origins no religion or philosophy has a foundation for our origins except what their beliefs and faith lead them to. Those are no foundations at all are they? I know Atheists like to claim that their view is not faith based. I cannot agree with that sentiment. Believing in something (or not believing in something) without empirical evidence is faith based. That is ok. I just wish they would accept it.

Personally, I will believe there is the possibility of a God until science can empirically prove the big bang and show that it was a natural, and not God made, occurrence. I doubt that will happen in my life time, if ever.

I cannot believe in any religion thus far proposed by man. There is no empirical hard evidence for any one of them. If there was we would all be praying to the same God.

Thus far science has provided the most evidence for their claims about our origins. They have postulated thought out and plausible theories. For the time being I will place my faith in that science knows what it is talking about. Long live the words of Carl Sagan baby.

I don't know. Nobody has any empirical evidence to show the origins of the Universe or of Life. Nobody. We all don't know.

That is exactly right, and exactly wrong! Everyone (yes everyone) makes their opinion on origins based on faith. But there is empirical evidence for our origins, and ALL of the evidence extant supports a Creator! But, having said that, I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t want to diverge from the OP towards a Creationists opinion; I want to get down to the nuts and bolts of an Ã¢â‚¬Å“atheistsÃ¢â‚¬Â evidence for origins (not an agnostics). Remember, this thread is an interrogative for atheists. And, every effort is being made to eliminate Ã¢â‚¬Å“equivocationÃ¢â‚¬Â and such (please read OP again).

If there was any empirical evidence either way we wouldn't be able to have these lovely discussions would we? No, we would all just know without out a doubt what the truth about our origins is. That would be that.

Again, wrongÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ And you are diverting hereÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ There is a plethora of evidence for Ã¢â‚¬Å“CreationÃ¢â‚¬Â and Ã¢â‚¬Å“BegettingÃ¢â‚¬Â, and we can have a Ã¢â‚¬Å“lovelyÃ¢â‚¬Â discussion on that elsewhere if youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d like, but it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t fit this OP. And, we do know, Ã¢â‚¬Å“without a doubtÃ¢â‚¬Â that everything Ã¢â‚¬Å“causedÃ¢â‚¬Â had a Ã¢â‚¬Å“CauserÃ¢â‚¬Â, further driving a nail into the coffin of your above argument; that argument is for another OP. Again; I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t want to diverge from the OP towards a Creationists opinion; I want to get down to the nuts and bolts of an Ã¢â‚¬Å“atheistsÃ¢â‚¬Â evidence for origins (not an agnostics). Remember, this thread is an interrogative for atheists. And, every effort is being made to eliminate Ã¢â‚¬Å“equivocationÃ¢â‚¬Â and such (please read OP again).

What are the atheistic foundations to support the atheistic worldview and philosophy of our origins?

That is the second questionÃ¢â‚¬Â¦

Atheism has no foundation to support their philosophy on origins.

That is correct; until something of worth is submitted to change that fact.

Again, you are incorrect, as I pointed out above. And, until you can refute my assertion, your submission is moot (i.e. nothing more than an unsupported opinion).

Since there is no empirical proof of our origins no religion or philosophy has a foundation for our origins except what their beliefs and faith lead them to.

Again, the first part of your sentence is incorrect, but the second part is correct. Everyone taking a stand, is doing so on faith. Those who follow the evidence (cause and effect [etceteraÃ¢â‚¬Â¦]) have a great deal of Ã¢â‚¬Å“empiricalÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ evidence to back up their assertions; those who donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t (i.e. Ã¢â‚¬Å“something coming from nothingÃ¢â‚¬Â, Ã¢â‚¬Å“life from non-lifeÃ¢â‚¬Â, everything coming from Ã¢â‚¬Å“mathematical pointsÃ¢â‚¬Â [etcetera]) asre proceeding on Ã¢â‚¬Å“Blind FaithÃ¢â‚¬Â.

Those are no foundations at all are they?

Actually, yes there are. And there are plenty of evidences for those foundations. The problem is, none of those evidences comport with the atheistic philosophy.

I know Atheists like to claim that their view is not faith based. I cannot agree with that sentiment.

Yes, most of them do. But they are making that assumption on faith as well. And on that you and I agree it seems.

Believing in something (or not believing in something) without empirical evidence is faith based. That is ok. I just wish they would accept it.

Believing for something, and believing against something, is still believing! And it is still a Ã¢â‚¬Å“faith basedÃ¢â‚¬Â proposition. And the more one becomes dogmatic about that stance, the more Ã¢â‚¬Å“religiousÃ¢â‚¬Â they become.

Personally, I will believe there is the possibility of a God until science can empirically prove the big bang and show that it was a natural, and not God made, occurrence. I doubt that will happen in my life time, if ever.

Empirically proving the big bang doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t disprove God. And implying a naturalistic causation for the universe doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t negate God either. It just begs the question! Ã¢â‚¬Å“WhatÃ¢â‚¬Â, or Ã¢â‚¬Å“WhoÃ¢â‚¬Â, set it all in motion? And attempting to extend that out-and-out to an infinite regress is illogical. There logically HAD to be an originator! And atheistic philosophy has NO answer for this!

There is no empirical hard evidence for any one of them. If there was we would all be praying to the same God.

Again, you are incorrect here, and you are straying far from the OP. I will pull you back to it.

Thus far science has provided the most evidence for their claims about our origins.

The vast majority of scientific evidence supports a Creator/Prime Causer/Initial Causative Force, and the honest scientists have admitted such. I can provide their quotes, but IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not going to divert from the OP to do so.

They have postulated thought out and plausible theories. For the time being I will place my faith in that science knows what it is talking about. Long live the words of Carl Sagan baby.

Science has postulated absolutely NO plausible theory, model, or hypotheses that negate the Creator/Prime Causer/Initial Causative ForceÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ Period! And Carl Sagan was one of the biggest religionists the atheistic philosophy has ever brought forth. Yes, even bigger than Dawkins!But, then again, we will keep with the OPÃ¢â‚¬Â¦

So, instead of simply answering the OP questions, it seems that some resort to playing fast and loose with the truth, in order to attack the person instead of the message. This is what is known as an Argumentum ad Hominem (of the abusive kind).

When you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t like the message, donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t open another thread, then totally twist, mislead, take out of context, and/or otherwise being dishonest with what was said. This is instead; attacking the person, not debating the message. It is dishonest, equivocating, wasting time and trolling of the forum.
Honest and civil debate is a dialogue that seeks the truth and removes the chaff (minutia) in order to formulate an informed opinion.

So, please, read the OP rules, before posting answers to the OP question. And, by all means, stick to the OP, not tactics to derail the thread.

I'll try logic.From where did we come (what are our Origins)? I don't know. Nobody has any empirical evidence to show the origins of the Universe or of Life. Nobody. We all don't know. If there was any empirical evidence either way we wouldn't be able to have these lovely discussions would we? No, we would all just know without out a doubt what the truth about our origins is. That would be that.

Also, just in case anyone missed it, magicninja is totally disregarding his own faith-laden worldview in his above statement. HeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s stating that he doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know the origins of the universe, and that there is no empirical evidence for it (BTW; totally disregarding the so-called big-bangÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s evidence for the universe having a beginning, and totally negating steady state), yet, he is willing to place all his faith in the religion of Ã¢â‚¬Å“nothingÃ¢â‚¬Â, or the religion of infinitude. Neither of which have logical, rational or scientific foundations.

MJ, if you cannot prove your origins, you are living a Ã¢â‚¬Å“fait-basedÃ¢â‚¬Â worldview.